The Privileges Committee Report

September 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm by David Farrar

The report has just been released and is online here.

I will comment on it shortly once I have read it. It is 280 pages long.

By a majority vote, they have recommended Peters be censured by the House. I can not recall the last time an MP was censured.

The majority includes United Future’s Peter Dunne, the Greens’ Russel Norman and Te Ururoa Flavvel from the Maori Party. This is every party on the Privileges Committee except members of Labour First. Note Peter Dunne is a Minister in the Government and the Greens have a co-operation agreement with Labour and the Maori Party abstain on supply and confidence.

They note on the issue of Henry refusing to disclose who suggested Henry approach Glenn for money:

We have received advice that legal professional privilege relates to communications made for the purpose of conveying legal advice and that it does not relate to the identity of a client, particularly when the issue does not relate to the communication of legal advice.

We note that legal professional privilege should not be used as an excuse to withhold information requested by the Privileges Committee, particularly in circumstances where this privilege does not apply.

They make the point that they have required a high standard of proof for their findings, as the allegations are serious – beyond the normal balance of probabilities.

They have determined that there was no debt from Peters to Henry, so no adverse finding there. But they have found the $100,000 constituted a gift as it benefited Peters:

We consider that the payment was of benefit to Mr Peters. Mr Henry’s work on the election petition did not create a direct legal obligation for Mr Peters to pay Mr Henry’s fees. However, Mr Henry told us that Mr Peters “knows that he owes me in the moral sense…”,18 and most clients would acknowledge such a moral obligation to pay a barrister.

A third-party payment to a member’s barrister benefits the member by discharging the moral (and potential legal) obligation to make payment and also by enabling the barrister to provide more assistance to the member in the future. Further, in these particular circumstances the payment contributed to funding an election petition which, if it had been successful, would have been of political benefit to Mr Peters.

They further note:

It is clear that the intent of the donor in this case was not to benefit the barrister. It was the member’s legal expenses that were being contributed to, not the barrister’s wellbeing. Mr Henry’s actions on receipt of Mr Glenn’s money were also unusual. Mr Henry wrote a “pro forma” invoice for GST and income tax purposes. We do not believe this is the normal response of the recipient of a gift. For a GST invoice to have been written, there must have been a taxable supply of services by Mr Henry. The relevant services were received by the member (or his solicitor, Mr Gates, on his behalf).

Together, these elements show clearly that the payment constituted a gift to Mr Peters.

On the issue of whether Peters knew:

The majority of us believe it is extremely unlikely that Mr Peters and Mr Glenn could have had a conversation on that date without the issue of a donation being raised, even if the original contact with Mr Glenn had been by Mr Henry, as claimed by Mr Peters and Mr Henry. The majority of us consider that the sequence of telephone calls followed immediately by an email containing bank account details indicates that the topic must have arisen during one or both of those conversations. It would have assisted our consideration if Mr Peters or Mr Henry had been able to recall more detail of their telephone conversation. Given the evidence before us, the majority of us concluded that Mr Peters had some knowledge of Mr Glenn’s intention to make a donation.

And their conclusion:

The majority of us find that Mr Peters had some knowledge of the $100,000 donation. Further, we find that Mr Peters, having an understanding of the arrangement by which funds were raised by Mr Henry, needed to make an honest attempt to file a correct return. For both these reasons, the majority of us find that a contempt occurred.

The proposed penalty:

Making a false or misleading return is a serious matter, akin to misleading the House. The majority of us therefore recommend that Mr Peters be censured for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests, and ordered to file, within seven days of the House so ordering, amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006, 2007, and 2008 covering any gifts, debts, or payments in kind that he has not previously registered. We request that the registrar ensure that the amended returns are published, recording that they are made subject to an order of the House.

This could be interesting, as it means any other donation to Peters legal fees, in excess of $500, has to be disclosed – if the House accepts the recommendation.

Now on the part regarding who paid for the $40,000 to Clarkson. is saying that as the cheque was from Wayne Peters’ trust account, he saw this as a reimbursement by Winston personally. Hilarious.

Now onto the letter from the SFO. The Director makes it very clear he got advise on whether to inform the Committee, and he has also bent over backwards to be fair to the donors who paid the $40,000 by redacting their names. He even asks the Privileges Committee not to order him to supply further information, even though he acknowledges a request from the Privileges Committee over-rides the secrecy provisions of the Serious Fraud Act.

The money laundering around the $40,000 is fascinating. Brian Henry did pay the $40,000 but the day before he sent Thompson WIlson (the law firm where two of the Spencer Trustees then worked)  his bank account details.

The Spencer Trust only has $15,400 being left over donations from Donor A. Then Person B (not Winston Peters we are told) lent the Trust $24,600 so they could pay $40,000 to Brian Henry  on 5 April.

Donor A (almpost certainly the Velas) then donated 4 cheques of $9,999 on the 7th of April 2006. Each cheque was from a different subsidiary company.

This allowed Person B’s loan to be repaid on 7 April.

What this means is that Donor A (almost certainly the Velas) personally donated $40,000 to pay off the $40,000 debt Peters owed Clarkson. He has to now declare this on his amended returns.

This raises massive issues relating to the conduct of his portfolios. The whole idea of disclosure is that the transparency it brings to whether Government decisions are affected by donations or gifts to an MP.

So the Minister for Racing in 2006 had Donor A – almost certainly the Velas, pay a $40,000 debt on his behalf. The Velas are multi-millionaires in the racing industry.  And the Minister of Racing convinces the Government – against Treasury advice – to provide lots of money to the racing industry.

Does Helen Clark not think that this gift should have been disclosed as it strikes at the heart of decision making in her Government? And no it is nothing to do with NZ First – this is a personal gift to the Minister of Racing from persons massively affected by the policies he is responsible for in his portfolio.

Helen actually has three decisions to make. They are:

  1. Does she sack Peters as a Minister for breaking the Cabinet Manual and not disclosing a $100,000 gift (let alone the multiple lies Peters has told)
  2. Having the $100,000 gift declared, does she allow Peters to keep it? Probably as it was paid to Henry, not Peters – but here is the big problem for her.
  3. The $40,000 from the Velas (assuming it is them) has to now be filed on the Register by Peters. Clark has to now decide whether she lets him keep the $40,000.

Here is the Cabinet Manual quote from section 2.79:

Ministers who accept gifts worth more than the prescribed value must not only disclose them to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, but also must relinquish them, unless they obtain the express permission of the Prime Minister to retain them.

So it is clear Helen has to decide whether Peters keeps the $40,000 gift (payment of a debt) from the Velas.

Now how corrupt will she look, if she says it is okay for her Minister of Racing to take and keep $40,000 from a family/company which has benefited hugely from the decisions of the Minister of Racing. He managed to force through millions of dollars of funding of racing prizes, against the advice of Treasury.

Clark has to make a decision on this. Peters has to relinquish the gift unless she gives her express permission he can keep it.

No wonder Winston wanted the SFO evidence suppressed. It was bad enough that NZ First had benefited by huge donations from the Velas, but to have it revealed that Peters personally was gifted $40,000 from them is hugely damaging.

Now it is possible the donations were not from the Velas but read the SFO letter and it looks highly likely. We should know more when Peters does his amended returns.

And as you consider all this, consider what depths the ethical standards of the Clark Government have descended to. Clark condones a Minister who:

  1. breaks the rules of the Register of Pecuniary Interests
  2. breaks the rules of the Cabinet Manual
  3. fails to disclose a $100,000 gift
  4. tells multiple lies about it
  5. gives false evidence to the Privileges Committee
  6. benefits with $100,000 towards his legal fees from a billionaire whom he then lobbies to be made Consul to Monaco
  7. has a $40,000 debt paid off by a company/family that benefits greatly from policy decisions he makes as Minister of Racing
  8. has filed false donation returns to the Electoral Commission

Any one of these should be enough for dismissal arguably. But Clark is keeping him on despite all of the above. Could standards possibly get any lower?

Tags: , , , , ,

73 Responses to “The Privileges Committee Report”

  1. Grant Michael McKenna (1,159 comments) says:

    I bet that the idea of reading it before commenting on it isn’t going to be a common one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Tim Ellis (251 comments) says:

    The PM will dismiss the Privileges Committee as biased and having reached a pre-determined outcome, notwithstanding that her own party and NZ First clearly made up their minds before hearing the evidence to vote in favour of contempt.

    It is much harder for her to maintain that Peter Dunne, Te Ururoa Flavell and Russel Norman all had a pre-determined view of the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dad4justice (8,097 comments) says:

    I can see why it’s called the privileges committee, because Winston was laughing with the Limousine Service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    So to sum up Winston Peters was telling lies.

    What say you now Helen?

    Quote
    Helen Clark said yesterday in Parliament she’d accept Mr Peters’ word “unless something arises out of the privileges committee or some other appropriate authority”

    Still believe there is “a conflict of evidence”
    Or will Winston be gone by lunch time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Crampton (215 comments) says:

    Initial market response to the report is that the price of event derivatives paying off at $1 if Peters is fired have jumped up by 10 cents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. petal (705 comments) says:

    D4J: “I can see why it’s called the privileges committee, because Winston was laughing with the Limousine Service”

    D4J’s usually off the planet, but… WTF? The booze is frying his brain! What a waste of protoplasm and a sentient mind.

    @democracymum: I would like to see Winston go down as much as anyone else, but Clark has made it absolutely clear that Peters will maintain his current position until the election.

    All we can hope for that there are 4.99%, or less, insane people out there allowed to vote on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,427 comments) says:

    Another trust? Thompson Wilson mentioned on page 8 with Ian Peters as Trustee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    And a nice summation from the Herald…
    The privileges committee report has recommended Winston Peters be censured for “knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests”.

    The committee said it found no evidence that Mr Peters made an “honest attempt” to find out whether any donations had been received before making his return in February 2006, despite his knowledge of his arrangement with Mr Henry (Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry) and the likelihood of donations being received towards his costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tim Ellis (251 comments) says:

    I’ve been watching that Crampton. The ipredict market is going nuts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. pdm (842 comments) says:

    Does this mean a `Motion to Censure’ Peters will be put before the house in the next couple of days. If that happens will the Labour/First axis be able to vote it down?

    On the face of it this may be a telling vote for the Greens in particular – do they have the balls to vote against Labour/First on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. metcalph (1,427 comments) says:

    There’s no appeal against the Privileges Committee’s findings so there won’t be a motion to censure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ed Snack (1,841 comments) says:

    I though they covered too li9ghtly one fact that should underline the matter of contempt. Winston Peters was ordered by the court to pay costs with regard to the elctoral petition, to the sum of $40K. This was not something that could be covered by his “blood brothers” arrangement with Brian Henry, this was a personal that he did, no question about it possible, know about the existence of. He was bound to pay these costs or be in contempt of court. Anyone paying for those costs in any way was making a donation or gift to Winston that had to be declared.

    I cannot see that there is any question possible on this: it was a personal debt; Winston knew of it; and yet he did not pay it directly himself. Therefor he received a gift or donation, and it had to be declared. Slam dunk. That is aside from the facts that on the clear balance of the evdence, the whole thing was setup and managed by Winston anyway, and so he was clearly aware of the whole transaction.

    Winston, you’re a liar, and as for Cullen & Co as the “minority”, you are blindly, nakedly, unquestionably, partisan beyond doubt, and what is more, partisan in an entirely corrupt and unethical way. You should resign in disgrace.

    Fat chance.

    And yes, I read the decision, skimming only the evidential pages in the appendices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dad4justice (8,097 comments) says:

    “D4J’s usually off the planet, but… WTF? The booze is frying his brain! What a waste of protoplasm and a sentient mind.”

    Such a nasty comment from a poisonous petal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    pdm

    Stuff are reporting
    “Parliament will debate the report tomorrow and vote on whether its recommendation should be adopted.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. coventry (320 comments) says:

    Page 100 – 101 – the SFO money trail showing Spencer Trust getting ‘unknown’ funds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. petal (705 comments) says:

    D4J “Such a nasty comment from a poisonous petal.”

    Nasty? Yes.

    True? Yes, also.

    You have less common sense, reason and popular support than Winston Peters himself. So I feel quite safe to sustain my original assertion that you are a waste of resources.

    D4J “Winston was laughing with the Limousine Service”

    HUH? C’mon now. You’re only barely functional in society, surely. What does that even mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Peters lied to the house. IMHO, so did Helen Klark. There has to be a hell of a lot more come out of this than merely a “censure” of Peters. What a bunch of oily crooks. Disgraceful that these lying scheming shameless cronyist lowlife sit in our parliament, and there is apparently nothing to be done about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,427 comments) says:

    The donors (and lender) to the Spencer Trust are known to the SFO, they just haven’t made the identities public

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KennyJelly (31 comments) says:

    None of these really matter now, as our beloved aunty Helen has already made it clear that she will not sack Winston. Talk about tail wagging the dog….

    Peters must have something really deep on Helen and got her “by the balls”, so nothing will happen to Winston, not now, not ever. In fact, I’m willing to bet that after November, Labour will remain in control, pretty much similar to current arrangement, except they will have a 1 dog, 3 tails situation (tails being NZF, treehuggers, and the racial party). And each of these tails will take turn wagging the dog in the next 3 years to come.

    To quote my younger brother : “MMP = fail!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (13,689 comments) says:

    Surely the scandal here is that Labour did NOT vote to censure Winston, in the face of overwhelming evidence and in the face of blatant lies they still chose to make a political decision.

    This is simply another example of the dirty filthy corrupt Labour party in action, the bastards are desperate to retain power.

    This is another golden opportunity for the Nat’s to score some big hits, the question is will they take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. petal (705 comments) says:

    “petal (103) +0 -4″

    Fascinating. People may not like someone unfit to be in charge of his own children, but they like someone else taking him down with his own words even less.

    Is there hope for society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Paul Marsden (991 comments) says:

    Petal. Two words for you mate… FUCK-OFF! (And you’re right, there’s no hope for society when you have lying, thieving, cheating arseholes as leaders of a country)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. petal (705 comments) says:

    Paul, if it was anyone else, I’d be all upset. But coming from you? Sure thing. All you had to do is ask, darling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Right of way is Way of Right (1,121 comments) says:

    Rather an interesting corner the Prime Minister has painted herself in to, bt then, if she was any good at painting she wouldn’t eed to sign someone else’s!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice (8,097 comments) says:

    “People may not like someone unfit to be in charge of his own children,”

    That is libellous, but who cares as false statements abound in kiwiland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Right of way is Way of Right (1,121 comments) says:

    If this goes to a parliamentary vote, Labour First will nto be able to muster the numbers. The House WILL be interesting tomorrow!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. metcalph (1,427 comments) says:

    I’m not having Peter Williams as a barrister if he can’t make a half-decent argument despite repeated promptings to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    It would appear that the only thing we can trust this government to do is to cover it’s own corrupt ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Paul Marsden (991 comments) says:

    As Big Bruv stated above, the bigger scandal (but not unexpected), is that Labour did not vote to censure Peter’s. They’re either numb-nuts or, corrupt….Maybe both?? I hope they get publicly vilified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. workingman (79 comments) says:

    DPF

    The majority includes United Future’s Peter Dunne, the Greens’ Russel Norman and Te Ururoa Flavvel from the Maori Party. This is every party on the Privileges Committee except members of Labour First.

    I thought ACT’s Heather Roy was on the committee, and I hope she supported the majority. I can imagine Rodney being a bit annoyed if she didn’t. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    It is now also apparent that Winston used the death of his own mother for political purposes. I wonder how that sits with Grey Power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    To quote my younger brother : “MMP = fail!”

    EPIC FAIL!

    On a more serious note, I’m thoroughly sick of the Peters issue.

    If this were australia, he would have resigned or been fired as soon as the SFO launched its inquiry, if not sooner.

    I just hope that this gets some positive press for ACT and Rodney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    If we’re reviewing and critquing the report of the Committee, I’m not convinced the Committee correctly applied the standard of “knowingly”:

    > LAWS179: “Peters, Privileges Committee, and ‘knowingly'”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. petal (705 comments) says:

    “That is libellous”

    Not if the courts disagree also.

    (Sorry Paul)

    Ok, that’s enough shit stirring for one day. Time to move on and join the adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Farrar (1,883 comments) says:

    Heather did vote with the majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Tauhei Notts (1,685 comments) says:

    Mr Kos’ evidence was interesting.
    Imagine this scenario.
    Gifts in excess of $27,000 per year attract gift duty. The father gives $27,000 to his family trust then a fortnight later darling derelict daughter tells him that her P dealer is threatening terrible damage for the unpaid $10,000 worth of P. Father settles the sum said to be owing. According to Mr Kos the $10,000 is not a gift, and not liable for gift duty because the debt is unenforceable and is therefore not a debt.
    Mr Kos; like everybody associated with Winston you are being reckless with the truth. This is a bloody nonsense.
    No inspector acting under the Estate and Gift Duties Act would ever countenance such idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Twocan (25 comments) says:

    People keep saying that there were members that went into the process with their minds made up. Damn right, just not the ones being accused of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. georgebolwing (779 comments) says:

    The Report does indeed record Heather Roy as being in the majority.

    The procedureis are that the Committee reports, and then the House has to decided what to do. Consideration of the Report is accorded priority tomorrow: it will come up after Questions and any urgent debate. Oh, and after any Ministerial Statements if the Government wants to pull that trick again.

    Simon Power, as chair of the Committee, will move that Peters be censured. There is no time limit for the debate that follows, but each member may speak for up to ten minutes.

    Then the vote. If the parties follow their membership of the Committee (not a foregone conclusion), Copeland votes to censure and Field against, it will be 63 to censure, 58 against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (16,230 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Liarbore is busy sowing obfuscation with its calculated release of Key and the TranzRail shares. They’ll ask in coming days why the Herald didn’t give that equal coverage alongside the Peters report.

    Lefties are indeed amazing at propaganda lies. Pity they spend all their efforts on that rather than actually helping those poor supporters still ignorant enough to give them Party Vote: Liarbore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,744 comments) says:

    Good to see the CORRUPT NATURE OF THE CLARK/PETERS AXIS being exposed to the public.

    Look’s like it will be up to the public to dish out the punishment at the polling booths on 8 November.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Zarchoff (100 comments) says:

    Peters has dirt on Helen Clarks wife Peter Davis. Apparently Aunty Peter got himself in some bother overseas of a rather delicate (personal lifestyle choice) nature and the Min of Foreign Affairs hushed it up. Winnie has all the dirt so Uncle Helen needs to keep him happy or he will spill his guts.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. And the next person who mentions that fucking stupid rumour here will get 100 demerits straight off. Leave bloody Peter Davis alone.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David Farrar (1,883 comments) says:

    Yes the vote should be:

    For: 63
    National 48
    Greens 6
    Maori 4
    United 2
    ACT 2
    Copeland 1

    Against: 58
    Labour 49
    Winston First 7
    Progressive 1
    Field 1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    Peters has dirt on Helen Clarks wife Peter Davis. Apparently Aunty Peter got himself in some bother overseas of a rather delicate (personal lifestyle choice) nature and the Min of Foreign Affairs hushed it up. Winnie has all the dirt so Uncle Helen needs to keep him happy or he will spill his guts.

    This is exactly the reason.

    Someone needs to say this to her while the cameras are rolling…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    “By a majority vote, they have recommended Peters be censured by the House. I can not recall the last time an MP was censured.”

    So what does being “censured” actually mean? Is there an actual punishment or just a telling off? Anyone care to enlighten me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. georgebolwing (779 comments) says:

    I am sick and fucking tired of being treated like an idiot by this Government!!!!!

    On the day that the Privileges Committee makes a damning finding against Peters, Michael thinks that the best thing he can do, while being paid by the long-suffering tax-payers of New Zealand, is to breathlessly point out that while opposition associate spokesman on transport, John Key dared to put in OIAs about a transport operator. For fucks sake!! That is what junior opposition members are for.

    Sad, stupid, pathetic government!! So this is it: the grand strategy to get a historic fourth term: ignore the stench around you, treat the electorate like fools and accuse junior MPs of going their job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    OECD

    The real evidence of corruption was disclosed today. Honest John Key bought Transrail shares, asked questions, pumped the price up, found out something, sold the shares and made a packet. All while he was an MP.

    He then consistently denied it.

    This is the strongest evidence of corruption I have seen in NZ for a long time.

    Roll on November 8. I agree the corrupt should be punished.

    [DPF: And no comment at all on your hero taking $40,000 from persons who then benefited by his decisions?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulL (5,954 comments) says:

    mickysavage: how much did he make? Last I heard he lost about $100K. So not only corrupt, but so stupid that he couldn’t make money even with insider information. Lets see….does that align with what we know about John Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. DJP6-25 (1,366 comments) says:

    Looks like it’s pot luck dinner time in New-Zealand then.

    First course: Canned worms, courtesy of the privileges committee.

    Second course: Grilled Hoki, courtesy of you know who? To be confirmed later.

    Third course: Scampi with tartare sauce, if the diners liked their Hoki.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. georgebolwing (779 comments) says:

    In the arcane world of parliamentary procedures, actually being found to have breached privilege is pretty rare, and taken seriously. David McGee, in his book on Parliamentary Practice cites examples of MPs being censured in 2000, 1982 and 1975.

    The actual punishment is the fact that, for evermore, the Journals of the House will record the fact of the censure and, in the next edition of his book, David McGee will record an example from 2008.

    And that Rodney, without fear of being ruled out of order, will be able to remind the House of this. And, like NZ First does with Keith Locke’s writings on Pol Pot, have a laminated copy of the vote at his desk in the Chamber, to be tabled at every opportunity. But, for shame, there won’t be many of those left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rex Widerstrom (5,349 comments) says:

    Having been a vocal critic of Peter Dunne in the past I’d be churlish not to acknowledge he’s shown some integrity on this issue (part of me wants to say that’s because he realises he won’t be negotiating with Labour after November 8 so he has nothing to lose… but I’ll bite my lip). Kudos too to Russel Norman and Te Ururoa Flavel.

    But… sadly this won’t have a huge impact. The people who already mistrust Winston will still mistrust him. But those that still believe every twist and turn of his “explanations” will simply swallow the line that this is a political set-up orchestrated by “dark forces” “manipulating” his “enemies”. The usual conspiracy theory paranoia he peddles at every opportunity.

    Unfortunately MPs in general are now held in such low regard that their finding one of their own has transgressed doesn’t have nearly the impact it should.

    The best hope of shaking lose the rusted-on nutjobs that support Winston is if the SFO finds against him and, hopefully, charges someone with something. But even then I wonder how many people will see a conspiracy there too – in that instance the SFO “making things up” to justify its continued existence.

    Of course the other thing that would have an impact is Helen Clark (re)discovering her integrity and lancing this troublesome boil and insignificant little pimples that surround him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom “Having been a vocal critic of Peter Dunne in the past I’d be churlish not to acknowledge he’s shown some integrity on this issue (part of me wants to say that’s because he realises he won’t be negotiating with Labour after November 8 so he has nothing to lose… but I’ll bite my lip). Kudos too to Russel Norman and Te Ururoa Flavel.”

    Part of me wants to point out that Peter Dunne is campaining on the “fact” that he is the only true centre party that is really honest, and the only party that can keep National and Labour honest (sic). So it is in his interest to have Winnie censured. But like yourself I’ll go with the intergrity angle and bite my lip too.

    Hey with all this lip biting going on should this be posted on the David Benson-Pope thread???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne is campaining on the “fact” that he is the only true centre party

    I struggle to believe that Peter Dunne can even convince himself that he’s centrist.

    He’s a leftie. National are centrist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. burt (8,206 comments) says:

    So Labour standing by Winston through all of this pretty much confirms John Key was correct, Labour are Donkey deep in this.

    The SFO is starting to look like it might be the real story. All credit to Rodney Hide and the SFO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Paul Marsden (991 comments) says:

    Burt. No other conclusion really, is there? I agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    PaulL

    To Quote

    “mickysavage: how much did he make? Last I heard he lost about $100K. So not only corrupt, but so stupid that he couldn’t make money even with insider information. Lets see….does that align with what we know about John Key?”

    It is really sad but as far as I can see Key was both corrupt and stupid. One transaction on behalf of his trust was a very poor one but made before he became an MP. He bought shares high and sold low.

    The other transaction was real dubious. He bought low, seemed to do some things using his position as an MP to increase the value and then sold high.

    Neither transaction suggest that he should be our PM. Long may Helen continue in this role.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    DPF

    [DPF: And no comment at all on your hero taking $40,000 from persons who then benefited by his decisions?]

    If you mean Peters he is not my hero. I wish the Greens were in coalition with Labour. You would have seen much more coherent policy.

    Peters ought to be told off for telling fibs.

    It appears that Key did the same but also used his position as an MP to increase his wealth. What should his penalty be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. francis (712 comments) says:

    Hey, micky! Key LOST money. LOTS of it. He did NOT “increase his wealth”. And if you look at the stock track you’ll see he didn’t even minimise his loss by bailing when he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. PaulL (5,954 comments) says:

    mickey, it doesn’t appear that way at all. Even Cullen said it wasn’t insider trading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kimble (4,428 comments) says:

    And Cullen is right, this is not insider trading at all, and anyone that says it is can easily be ignored because they obviously dont know what they are talking about. The people that consider this ‘very suspicious’ are the sorts of desperate labour no-hopers that would find news that Key once scratched his arse ‘very suspicious’.

    I know you lefties have difficulty with honesty, but any questions that were answered in Parliament in regards to Tranzrails financial position belonged in the public domain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Mickey you say Key made a poor transaction losing 100K “buying high and selling low” his train shares, can you tell us how clever you think Cullen’s transaction was of buying train shares $570 MILLION more than they’re worth ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,744 comments) says:

    Looks like Clark is Donkey Deep in it.

    That’s what you get when you’re part of the CLARK/PETERS AXIS. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    All you seem to hear is Klark and Kullen whining, again and again and again.

    Those panel beaters in Carr Road, Mt Roskill aren’t going to change their voting preference because Kullen and Klark are whining losers.

    Real men take their losses on the chin and move on.

    Unlike Labour – they cheat and lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    mickysavage (69) Vote: 1 7 Says:
    September 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    “Peters ought to be told off for telling fibs.”

    Nice euphamism Mickey, Peters cheated and raped the legal system of New Zealand for his own pecuniary interest.

    Peters stole form the taxpayer in essence.

    Labour has condoned the crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    Peters must have something really deep on Helen and got her “by the balls”,
    Then that must come out if it’s true. It’s well past the time that people were timid on this – if the connection can be shown to Labour then they must be tarred with the brush. There still doesn’t appear to be anything that will convince Helen Clark to sack Peters, especially given that the hit in the polls hasn’t been as great as expected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    So Peters will be asked to file more false returns. Wow, what a punishment.

    Labour will keep attacking with lies.

    National will stay silent.

    The media, which ridiculously got 3 cheers on here for being so damn good, will continue the leftwing propaganda and attacks on National and John Key even though they know they’re lies.

    It’s halarious! Lies and corruption is NZ’s M.O. as long as everyone gets a bit of their own money returned via WINZ.

    Fuckin’ losers.

    Vote ACT, if you remember a time before the Labour/Green coalition of corruption and lies.

    Vote ACT, if you’re sick to death of watching National deliver NZ to communism and corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. dad4justice (8,097 comments) says:

    gg, why bother voting as I cannot see a credible political party with any integrity. Join the mass exodus as this country is a pc world of deception and lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    What do you reckon Peters will put on his ‘true’ returns ? . Being the drama queen that he is, I’m pretty sure he’ll stretch it out and file them on the last possible day, and won’t include any new information, probably not even the Glenn donation, just to get himself in more trouble and cement his martyr image with his followers.
    The thing about conspiracy theorists is, the more you lose, the more it proves you’re right about the vast conspiracy out to get you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Here’s a brain teaser. If a third party were to put up a giant billboard just saying “Vote for Clark and Peters” would that count as an endorsement for or against Labour under the EFA ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    So Winnocent is innocent?

    And John Key is a corrupt money trader?

    Right?

    OR have I missed something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    Yes the vote should be:

    For: 63
    National 48
    Greens 6
    Maori 4
    United 2
    ACT 2
    Copeland 1

    Against: 58
    Labour 49
    Winston First 7
    Progressive 1
    Field 1,

    Ok, say there’s a vote and this is the outcome – where to from there? Would Winston be in contempt of parliament if he doesn’t follow the recommendations? Where would that leave parliament? Presumably if they voted again on a contempt issue he’d just ignore that too? With Margaret Wilson as speaker nothing’s going to happen – it would take the GG to dissolve parliament and i’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen. So corruption is proven, but nothing can be done about it, unless Helen gives her assent. And the MSM remains silent – what a fucken crock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    The report is fair. It is unclear whether Peters was a party to the phone conversation that resulted in henry responding to Glenn. However the PI set a high standard of proof and got him on a technical matter: the nature of a gift. His contempt was of Parliament for not putting his mind to filling in the forms properly. He breached Parliaments standards in not reporting at the time a probable gift, knowing, or he should have known, that someone had benefited him even though indirect.

    There are other matters concerning his conduct which are only touched on but may prove ultimately to be his real undoing. Certainly his character is shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    Progressive to abstain! I’ll give that much to Anderton – at least he’s not prepared to stoop to the same levels as Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.